Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3989 RESOLUTION NO. 3 9 8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR A 236 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS AUBURN FORTY WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON WHEREAS, Application No. PL T04-0009, dated December 16, 2004, has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Brian McCabe on behalf of Investco Financial Corporation, requesting preliminary plat approval for a 236 lot Single-Family Residential subdivision known as Auburn Forty; and WHEREAS, said request referred to above was referred to the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to consider said application in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall on December 7, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of January 17, 2006, the City Council voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held February 15, 2006, at which time the City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's Resolution No. 3989 February 27,2006 Page 1 of 3 recommendations and the material presented to the Hearing Examiner after which the Council voted to approve Application No. PL T04-0009 with the conditions recommended by the Hearing examiner and Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and incorporated in this Resolution. Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for a 236 lot Single- Family Residential subdivision known as Auburn Forty within the City of Auburn, legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved subject to the conditions as set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation attached hereto. Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Resolution No. 3989 February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Dated and Signed this (0{i\. day Of\f'(\ CYvCc.___ , 2006 ATTEST: ~ 11 'I , , If? ' ,i aiL/die? .J~ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk Resolution No. 3989 February 27,2006 Page 3 of 3 ./ Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 3989 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Applications of NO. PUD04-0002 PL T04-0009 Brian McCabe, Investco ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION For Rezone, Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council that the requests for a rezone of approximately 38.48 acres from R-2 Residential to Planned Unit Development, for approval of a Planned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for the Auburn Forty subdivision, a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision, be APPROVED subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Investco, through Brian McCabe (Applicant), requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development, and a preliminary plat for the Auburn Forty, a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision. The subject property, totaling 38.48 acres, is located between the Green River and the 4200-4300 block ofI Street NE. Hearing Date An open record hearing on the request was held before the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2005. Testimonv At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Mr. Jeff Dixon, Planner, City of Auburn 2. Joseph Welsh, City Transportation Engineer 3. Jeff Mann, Applicant Representative, Apex Engineering 4. Dennis Hanberg, Applicant Representative, Apex Engineering 5, William Lynn, attorney representing the Applicant 6. Richard Hathaway, representative of the property to the south Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat - PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 1 of26 Exhibits At the open record hearing, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record: Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit II Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 City of Auburn Staff Report, dated December 2,2005 Notice of Application Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Posting Affidavit of Mailing Confirmation of Receipt of Request to Publish Legal Notice Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), dated October 13, 2005 Final Staff Evaluation (supporting document to Final MDNS) 2001 Aerial Site Photograph Sensitive Areas Report for the Kawasaki Site, from Watershed Dynamics, 7-12- 04, revised 3-24-05 Letter from Apex Engineering response to Completeness Letter (environmental checklist application supplement), dated 3-25-05, including attachments Figure I - Photos of Auburn Marketplace Pond Figure 2 - Photos of open rail fences Figure 3- aerial photo of existing site buildings Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, from The Transpo Group, dated March 2005 Auburn Forty- Supplemental Transportation Information, from The Transpo Group, dated April 22, 2005 Letter Drainage Report: Preliminary Plat of Auburn Forty Storm Drainage, from Apex Engineering, dated June 14,2005 Port of Seattle Master Plan Wetland Delineation Report of the Construction Access and Staging Site Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Parametrix, dated April 2003 SEP A Addendum Relating to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of Seattle, dated June 2003 Final Construction Drawing Plan Set Port of Seattle, Wetland Mitigation Construction Site, GRAOI-0004, Sheets n, CI-17, TEI-3, & Ll-15, Port of Seattle, dated March 30, 2004 Conceptual Plans and Sections for I Street NE Storm Drainage, Apex Engineering, Inc., dated July I, 2005 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat, ABPB Consulting, LLC, dated July 22, 2005 Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco, dated October 17,2005 Typical Setback and Building Envelopes - Diagrams (4 pages) Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated October 27,2005 Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering, dated October 20, 2005 Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets I and 2 of2, Apex Engineering, dated October 27, 2005 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/PreIiminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 2 of26 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Exhibit 27 Exhibit 28 Exhibit 29 Exhibit 30 Exhibit 31 Exhibit 31 Exhibit 32 Exhibit 33 Exhibit 34 Exhibit 35 Exhibit 36 Exhibit 37 Exhibit 38 Exhibit 39 Exhibit 40 Exhibit 41 Exhibit 42 Exhibit 43 Exhibit 44 Exhibit 45 Exhibit 46 Exhibit 47 Exhibit 48 Exhibit 49 Auburn Forty PUD, I Street NE Alignment Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated October 17, 2005 Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group, dated October 31, 2005 Preliminary Landscape (Stormwater Pond) Cross Sections, Bradley Design Group, dated October 31, 2005 Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated November 30, 2005 Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines, undated REVISED Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines, undated REVISED The City of Auburn Planned Unit Development Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Benefits and Open Space Criteria, dated November 4, 2005 Figure 3 Road Layout and Classification under Preferred Alternative for the NE AubumlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan, Northeast AubumlRobertson Properties Final EIS, City of Auburn, dated July 2004 Letter from Jim Kelly, Parametrix, to Ralph Wessels, Port of Seattle re: Protective Buffers at the Auburn (Port of Seattle) Mitigation Site, dated November 7, 2003 REVISED Preliminary Plat Auburn Forty PUD Sheets I & 2 of2, Apex Engineering, final revision dated November 30, 2005 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Auburn North Forty (CC&Rs),10-28-05 Exhibit B (to CC&Rs) The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines, dated October 28, 2005 Exhibit B (to CC&Rs) The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines, revised and received 11-30-05 The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines for the Construction of New Homes, received November 30, 2005 E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting sign detail, dated December 17,2004 Letter from Jeffrey Mann of Apex Engineering re: Waiver of Regulatory Timeframes, dated November 30, 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northeast AubumlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan, Auburn W A, City of Auburn, February 2004 (CD version) Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast AubumlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan, Auburn W A, City of Auburn, July 2004 (CD version) Auburn Forty Planned Unit Development; Auburn Hearing Examiner Public Hearing December 7, 2005 Auburn Forty PUD Rezone Exhibit, Investco Financial, dated October 28,2005 Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parcel 000400-0005 Lakeland Hills PDD Landscape Amenities Auburn Forty PUD and Preliminary Plat; Comparison of Benefits of the PUD Typical Storm Retention Facilities Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 3 of 26 Exhibit 50 Exhibit 51 Exhibit 52 Exhibit 53 Exhibit 54 Exhibit 55 Exhibit 56 Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I Street NE, Auburn, W A; L-I of 1, dated December 7, 2005 Preliminary Landscape Cross Sections Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I Street NE, Auburn, W A; L-2 of2, dated December 7, 2005 Pond F Perspective Pond A Perspective Informal Open Space; Lakeland Hills South PUD "Verona"; Intersection of 67th Street & Elizabeth Ave SE, dated December 5, 2005 Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's staff report regarding application nos, PUD04-000l and PLT04-0009, File #27830/0, dated December 7, 2005 Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency, dated December 7, 2005 Polygon Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes) OakRidge Homes Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes) Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to the Applicant's updatt::d exhibits, dated December 21, 20051 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Applicant requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a preliminary plat to develop "The Auburn Forty," a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision. The 38.48-acre subject property is located between the Green River and the 4200-4300 block ofI Street NE in Auburn, Washington.2 Exhibit 1, Staff Report page 1; Exhibits 29 and 30; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 2. The City of Auburn processes PUD applications in several steps. The first step requires approval of a contract rezone of the subject property from its existing zoning designation to a PUD designation. The contract rezone specifies the land use, the density, the number and types of dwelling units, the amount and types of open space, and the responsibilities ofthe Applicant. In the present case, the application for preliminary plat approval has been processed simultaneously with the PUD application. If the PUD is approved, the next steps would be City approval of construction plans, installation of infrastructure by the Applicant, and then application for final plat approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5. 1 At the public hearing, the Applicant submitted several updated versions of previously submitted documents, in addition to several new exhibits. The Hearing Examiner allowed the City time to prepare a response to the additional exhibits after review, which the City submitted as Exhibit 56 on December 21, 2005. The record closed on that date. The parties agreed to extend the time for preparation ofthe Hearing Examiner's written decision until January 6, 2006, 2 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; also known as Parcel No. 0004200004. The full legal description ofthe site is in the record at Exhibit 29, Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Application. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 40f26 3. The area surrounding the subject property was annexed to the City in 1970, Considered an "Auburn Gateway," it has remained largely undeveloped until recent market conditions in the Puget Sound region have begun to bring development to the area. Abutting the northeast portion of the subject property is a 67-acre wetland/in-kind habitat creation area owned by the Port of Seattle and used for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable impacts from development of the third runway project at SeaTac Airport. Exhibit 16, SEP A Addendum Relating to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of Seattle, June 2003. The Port of Seattle purchased an additional 35-acre parcel abutting the northwest corner of the subject property for the purpose of providing access to its wetland mitigation site. Other than wetland creation and access-related improvements, both of the Port's parcels will remain undeveloped. Also to the north ofthe subject property is the recently approved River Sand PUD, which will create 172 single-family residential lots and 115 multifamily units on approximately 40 acres north of the subject property. The River Sand property is on the south side of South 277th Street approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 14; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 4. An undeveloped section ofI Street NE forms the western site boundary. Properties across I Street NE have Heavy Commercial (C3) and Multi-Family Residential (R-4) zoning and land use designations. There is a childcare facility across I Street NE. The R- 2 zoned property south of the site is vacant. It has Single Family Residential and High Density Residential land use designations. Immediately east of the site is a swath of vacant, unincorporated Green River shoreline owned by King County. Property west of the river has an R-2 zoning designation and an Open Space land use designation. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 9, Aerial Site Photograph. 5, Critical areas found to exist on-site include the 100-year floodplain of the Green River and buffers of off-site wetlands and river shoreline. No wetlands exist on-site; however, the buffers of two off-site Port of Seattle wetlands extend into the subject property along the northern plat boundary. The Applicant proposes a vegetation planting plan for Tracts X, Y, and the northwestern portion of Tract B to minimize impacts of the trail on the wetland buffer. Impacts to the on- and off-site critical areas were considered in the City's environmental threshold determination. Required mitigation measures relating to critical areas include additional geotechnical study, preparation of a final wetland buffer enhancement plan, and construction of floodplain compensation in the event that floodplain storage capacity is impacted by the project. Exhibit 20. Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pageJO; Exhibit 7, MDNS. The Applicant's preliminary geotechnical study concluded the project site is suitable for.the proposed development. Exhibit 19, Preliminary Geotechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat, ABPB Consulting, LLe. 6. The proposed development would create 236 single-family residential lots and 25 tracts in three phases. Phase I would include development of the central one-third of the site, containing 88 lots, and the sanitary pump station in proposed Tract K adjacent to the southern plat boundary. Phase II would include the 70 lots closest to I Street NE, and Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 5 of26 Phase III would include the remaining 78 proposed lots closest to the Green River. The Applicant intends to request three separate final plat approvals, No phasing is proposed for infrastructure improvements; the Applicant proposes to install all roads and utilities prior to requesting final plat approval on any of the three phases. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4-5; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 7. The subject property has had a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R-2) since 1987 when the City adopted its zoning ordinance. It is developed with a single- family residence and agricultural buildings that would not be retained if the proposal were approved. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Development standards of the R-2 district require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of60 feet. ACC 18.14.040. 8. Recent market trends have encouraged the creation of residential lots smaller than those required by the R-2 zoning district. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 14; Testimony of Mr. Mann. The Applicant requested a rezone from R-2 to the PUD zoning district to allow an enhanced, more flexible site design. Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Application; Exhibit 30, Auburn Forty PUD Application Narrative. 9. PUDs are permitted on parcels of at least ten acres within all areas designated as residential by the City's Comprehensive Plan (except for areas designated as "Rural Residential"). ACC 18.69.040. Pursuant to the City Code, "[t]he purpose ofa [PUD] district is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. A PUD district also allows for a greater range of residential development scenarios, provides for internal transfers of density, and may result in more dwelling units than may be realized by using the existing development standards. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City requires the PUD to result in a significantly higher quality development, generate more public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of standard zoning or subdivision procedures." ACC 18.69.010. 10, The City's Comprehensive Plan Map was updated in 1995 to be consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36,70B. The subject property has two Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. The western 5.47 acres ofthe site, adjacent to I Street NE, are designated High Density Residential, and the eastern 33.01 acres, near the Green River, are designated Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. "High Density Residential" areas may be developed with up to 18 units per acre. "Single Family Residential" areas may contain up to six units per acre.] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6, 13. 3 The site is within an area designated by the City's Comprehensive Plan as a "NE Auburn Special Plan Area." Several property owners in the area are in the process of developing a master plan addressing I Street alignment/design, stonndrainage and utilities, land use types and densities, financing of required infrastructure, and the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project. Recent developments in the vicinity, including the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project and the approval of the River Sand PUD, have removed the uncertainty regarding the development future of much of the NE Auburn Special Plan Area. City Planning Staff anticipates that the Auburn 40 property will be excluded from the Special Plan Area when the Comprehensive Plan Map is amended in Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 60f26 II. The subject property contains no "unbuildable areas" and therefore, under the PUD provisions, could be divided to contain up to 296 lots.4 The Applicant proposes 236 lots, The proposed density is 6.13 units per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Applicalion; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. 12. The Applicant proposes to develop only detached and zero setback lots,S PUD lot size standards vary by Comprehensive Plan land use designation and by lot type. "High Density Residential" areas require a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet for detached single-family residential uses and for zero lot line lots. "Single Family Residential" areas require minimum lots sizes of3,600 square feet for detached lots and 2,700 square feet for zero setback lots, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6-7. All lots in Phase II (Lots 1-36 and 203-236) and all "alley loaded" lots in Phases I and III would be zero setback lots.6 All other lots would be detached lots. All proposed lots satisfy the minimum PUD lot size requirements.? Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7. 13. The Applicant representative testified that the use of the flexible PUD development standards would allow the Applicant to provide more affordable housing opportunities for a broader economic range of potential buyers. The resulting mixture of diverse housing types creates a "streetscape" with aesthetic value, which according to the Applicant cannot be derived from traditional subdivision layouts. Testimony of Mr. Mann; Exhibit 32, The City of Auburn Planned Unit Development Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Benefits and Open Space Criteria. 14. PUDs are required to set aside a minimum of 20% oftheir total buildable area as open space. ACC 18.69.080. The project, at 38.48 acres, must provide a minimum of 7.69 acres in open space. The Applicant proposes to set aside 7.79 acres of open space (20.2% of the total site area) in the following tracts: conjunction with the completed development ofthe Port of Seattle properties. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 4 The 5.47-acre "High Density Residential" designated portion of the site could contain up to 98 dwelling units. The 33.01-acre "Single Family Residential" designated portion ofthe site could contain up to 198 dwelling units. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6. , "Detached lots" are those on which the structure is set back from all lot lines. "Zero setback lots" are those on which the structure is not setback from one lot line and is not attached to other structures on adjoining lots, ACC 18. 69. 030(E). 6 Alley loaded lots are those that have vehicle access only to the rear of the lot from an alley. 7 For a depiction of typical setback envelopes, please see Exhibit 21, Typical Setback and Building Envelopes- Diagrams. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPreJiminary Plat- PLT04-0009lPUD04-0002 page 70f26 Publicly Owned: Tracts A & F Enhanced storm water facilities along north plat boundary Tract B A trail along the north plat boundary connecting I Street NE to the Green River parkway Parkland to be dedicated to the City and developed with recreational equipment Open space/wetland buffer along north central plat boundary Open space Tract E Tract X Tract Y Privately Owned by the Homeowners' Association: II Tracts Proposed for general open space: Tracts G, I, J, Q, R, S, T, V, W, DD & EE Landscaped entrance sign Enhanced open space to ensure project satisfies sight distance standards Tract N Tract U Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7-8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. 15. City Planning Staff determined that Tract DD is not suitable for designation as open space due to its size and its perpendicular orientation to the adjacent trail in Tract B. Staff opined that most project residents would consider Tract DD part of the adjoining lot. Staff noted that the project would satisfy the PUD requirement for 20% open space dedication even if Tract DD were excluded from proposed open space. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 15; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to the Applicant's updated exhibits, dated December 21,2005. The Applicant contends that Tract DD's location adjacent to the trail in Tract B (regardless of its perpendicular rather than contiguous orientation), in addition to the potential view corridor into the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project to the north, particularly recommend the use of Tract DD as open space. Exhibit 53, Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's staff report regarding application nos. PUD04-0001 and PLT04-0009; Testimony of Mr. Mann. 16. City Planning Staff stated that Tract U, designated as open space to ensure sight distance standards are met, must be dedicated to the City as right-of-way for I Street NE. Exhibit 1. Staff Report, page 8, 17. The City's Park and Recreation Plan (as incorporated by the Subdivision Code) requires that for every 1,000 proposed residents, development must dedicate 6.03 acres of unimproved parkland to the City. ACC 17.12.260. The project must dedicate a minimum 00,99 acres ofland to the City for public parklands.8 The project would include that dedication of 4.18 acres consisting of Tracts Band E as public parklands. The Applicant 8 Refer to the Staff Report for the complete calculation of required parkland dedication. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 80f26 proposes to install play equipment and trail improvements in the 3.2-acre Tract E public park concurrent with plat development as public park amenities for residents of the PUD. The existing stand of mature trees within the Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tract E would be retained. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 32, Revised Analysis of PUD Benefits. 18, PUDs are required to promote pedestrian circulation. The project would enhance pedestrian safety and movement by continuing the I Street NE sidewalk along the property's frontage, by providing sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets, and by providing a public trail connecting I Street NE with the Green River parkway. The City Parks and Recreation Department requested the east-west pedestrian trail (located in Tract B) to create a dedicated public access point to the future north-south Green River Trail, that the City plans to develop along the river's west bank as an important recreational and transportation resource. The proposed PUD would also provide connections to the public park to be located in Tract E via the sidewalks along the internal plat road adjacent to the project's east boundary. The project is consistent with the 2005 Park and Recreation Plan and the Non-Motorized Plan. Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 1. Staff Report, pages 11, 17; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 19. Despite the site's long, narrow configuration, the proposal would promote pedestrian circulation because it doesn't contain excessive lengths of straight internal streets, thereby controlling vehicle speed. In order to further encourage vehicle speeds consistent with pedestrian safety, the City Engineer requested that traffic-calming devices be required at the time of final roadway design. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 20. The subject property is adjacent to an undeveloped portion of I Street NE. The Applicant proposes to provide access to the site by improving the site's I Street NE frontage to City standards for minor arterial roads. In order to do so, the Applicant must dedicate right- of-way to the City, including Tracts C and M. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 18; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. The project would have 571.3 feet of frontage. Because ofthe proximity of existing accesses on adjacent properties, 571.3 feet of frontage is not sufficient to allow more than one access point into the proj ect from I Street NE consistent with the City's intersection separation standards. Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 12, Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11, 21. Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13 requires developments with more than 75 dwelling units to provide two access points. The same policy prohibits the creation of dead end roads longer than 600 feet Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Surrounded by the Green River to the east, permanently protected wetland property to the north, and undeveloped private property to the south, the subject property can only provide access along its western border on I Street NE. South of the site, I Street NE connects to public roads via 40th Street NE. North of the site, I Street NE connects to public roads via 45th Street NE. Both 40th and 45th Streets connect to Auburn Way North. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 9 of26 The Applicant must extend off-site improvements on I Street NE to both 40th and 45th Streets to comply with City road standards and policies requiring multiple access points. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 9, Aerial Site Photograph. Providing north and south traffic access routes to the plat entrance would also have the benefit of distributing traffic more evenly through the City's street network. Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency. The Applicant proposes to construct I Street NE north to 45th Street and south to 40th Street with the first phase of development. Exhibit 54, Memorandumfrom The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency. 22. The undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way from the site north to 45th Street NE has been the subject of several recent studies done in conjunction with the Port of Seattle wetland project. The City and the Port of Seattle are currently engaged in negotiations regarding vacation of the right-of-way. The City anticipates that the right-of-way exchange would be concluded early in 2006. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11-12; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 23. The primary internal plat road connecting to I Street NE would be developed to Residential Collector standards for the length of Phase 1. The residential collector street would be stubbed to the site's south boundary between Phases I and II to provide for future connectivity. Immediately east of the boUndary between Phases I and II, the primary plat road would become a local residential street throughout Phases II and III and would stub to the site's south boundary in two locations, once at the boundary between Phases II and III, and once at the east end of the project, adjacent to Tract E. Notice of the future extensions of on-site dead-end roads must be noted on the face of the final plat and posted at the road stub locations, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13. Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 13, Auburn Forty- Supplemental Transportation Information, The Transpo Group. 24. Despite its limited frontage on I Street NE, the project must still provide two points of access internal to the site in order to comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13, City Planning Staff testified that the purpose ofthe dual access requirement is to provide adequate emergency access to developments of greater than 75 lots. The Applicant proposes to develop the plat's internal residential collector access street as a boulevard with two 20-foot lanes separated by a landscaped median. The 20-foot lanes would extend east within the plat to a point within Phase III such that the widened road would serye all lots within the PUD except for 75. Staff testified that the divided boulevard would provide two lanes for emergency vehicle access. The City accepted the proposed divided boulevard in satisfaction of the dual access requirement. If and when the property to the south develops, three additional access points would be available, Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, dated December 21, 2005; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 12; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 25, Within the western one-third of the site, the proposed internal road network consists of branching "T" intersections to the north and south from the primary residential collector Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone!PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 10 of26 entrance road. The eastern two-thirds of the site would contain looped roadways interconnected with public 20-foot-wide alleys. All roads within the plat would be dedicated as public roadways. Seventeen lots would have access from shared private access tracts, as follows: Tract D (Lots 42-44); Tract H (Lots125-127); Tract L (Lots 134-136); Tract 0 (Lots 10-13); and Tract P (Lots 27-30). The private access tracts would be owned by the Homeowners' Association. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. 26, The Applicant requests deviations from four City Public Works Design and Construction Standards, including the following: . A deviation from the City's local residential street standard to allow the landscape strip to interyene between the sidewalk and curb on both sides of the streets, rather than on only one side; . A deviation from the City's residential collector street standard to allow a landscaped boulevard section for the Residential Collector Street; . A deviation for road radii for internal streets at seven locations; and . A deviation to allow the intersection spacing between local residential streets and alleys (treated as local residential streets) to be closer than the design standard separation of 125 feet. City Public Works Staff reviewed the deviation requests and determined they are supported and approvable; however, approval of the requested deviations is deferred to ensure that all required project modifications are considered. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 27. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by The Transpo Group. The TIA indicated that the project would generate approximately 2,328 average daily trips, including 236 weekday PM peak hour trips.9 Exhibit 12, Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group, March 2005. According to the Applicant's transportation consultant, the intersection of the plan entrance and I Street NE would operate a Level Of Service (LOS) B or better during peak hours, satisfying City standards. Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group. 28. The anticipated project trips combined with the new trips expected to be generated by other "pipeline" projects, i.e. River Sand PUD, would degrade traffic movements at the existing intersection of 45th Street NE and Auburn Way North to LOS E, a condition requiring mitigation. A traffic signal warrant analysis performed by the City revealed that post-development operations at the intersection would warrant signalization. A condition ofMDNS approval requires the Applicant to contribute a 25% share towards the future 9 The TIA review was based on 240 new lots; the Applicant proposes 236 lots. Because the TIA documented the traffic impacts of a slightly larger proposal, its results adequately address the impacts attributable to the current proposal. Exhibit 54, Memorandumfrom The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency, dated December 7. 2005. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 11 of26 signalization ofthe intersection. No other mitigation was requested for off-site traffic impacts. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 5 and i9; Exhibit i, Staff Report, page i2; Exhibit i2, Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation impact Analysis. 29. City of Kent schools would serye the project. The project's impacts to schools would be mitigated by the payment of school impact fees to the Kent School District. The City of Auburn is authorized by ordinance to collect school impact fees on behalf of Kent. The sidewalks provided along the internal plat streets would provide safe walking routes for school children within the plat to a bus stop that would be located on I Street NE. Due to the Kent School District's policy of not permitting school buses to enter subdivisions, a bus stop would be located on I Street NE. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Exhibit i, Staff Report, page 13; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 30. The Applicant's submittals indicate that approximately 35% of the site would be covered by new imperyious surfaces at full build out, generating new stormwater runoff. The Applicant commissioned a preliminary surface water report and engineering from Apex Engineering Inc. A stormpond in Tract F would collect and detain runoff from the eastern two-thirds of the plat. The runoff would be treated using water quality best management practices and released into the existing Port of Seattle wetlands north of the site via level spreaders or other means "to mimic natural sheet flow" to and across the Port of Seattle property. Exhibit i4, page i. In addition, the Applicant proposes to install a bypass storm conveyance pipe from the south end of the plat to the level spreaders in Tract F to maintain the existing natural flow from the approximately 80 acres south of the subject property to the Port's existing wetlands. A second storm pond in Tract A would collect and treat runoff from new imperyious surfaces in the eastern one-third of the project and from the I Street NE improvements. The pond in Tract A has been sized to collect and treat post-development runoff volumes for the sub-basin before conveying it into an existing ditch system that flows north through an area of unincorporated King County and eventually into the Green River. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 2-3; Exhibit i4, Letter Drainage Report, Apex Engineering inc.; Testimony of Mr. Mann. 31. The Applicant submitted plans depicting proposed stormponds that generally satisfy City stormwater management standards,1O Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated November 30, 2005. Minor modifications to pond designs may still be required during civil plan review. Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Comprehensive Plan Policy UD-6 promotes stormdrainage facilities that "incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of a site, preclude the need for security fencing, and serye as an amenity." At hearing, Applicant representatives described in detail the manner in which the Applicant proposes to create storm ponds that not only satisfy City stormwater management design standards, but also provide an aesthetic amenity to the plat and the general public. The Applicant submitted conceptual drawings and photographs of existing storm ponds to illustrate the intended 10 The November 30, 2005 plans (Exhibit 28) are revisions of the proposed storm pond designs for Tracts A and F submitted in the October 31,2005 Preliminary Landscape/Stormwater Pond Cross Sections, which did not comply with City design standards. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 15; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 12 of26 aesthetic contribution that would be made by the proposed stormponds. Testimony of Mr. Hanberg; Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering; Exhibit 49, photographs of existing off-site ponds; Exhibit 51, Conceptual Depictions of proposed ponds; Exhibit 32, Revised Analysis of PUD Benefits. 32. Management of the stormwater runoff from the proposed development was addressed during the City's environmental review of the project Compliance with the mitigation measures imposed on the project through the City's environmental threshold determination would ensure that there would be no adverse impacts to the environment or surrounding properties. Exhibit 7, MDNS; Testimony of Mr, Dixon. 33. The Applicant proposes to extend City of Auburn water to the project To do so, the Applicant must construct on- and off-site water extension projects consistent with Comprehensive Water Plan and Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant must install dual connections to the water system, including one connection to the west in the vicinity of King County Parcel No. 000400-01117 and another connection within the I Street NE right-of-way south to the vicinity of Parcel No. 000400-0113. Specific parameters for water line extension were addressed in MDNS Condition 12. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon, 34. Currently, no sewer seryice extends to the site. City sewer policies prioritize gravity systems as the most cost-effective means of providing sanitary sewer seryice; however, pressure systems are allowed when gravity systems are impractical or cost-prohibitive, The Applicant submitted information justifYing the need for a pressure system, Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6. The Applicant proposes to construct a sewer pump station in Tract K to serye the entire development. The proposed central location of the pump station would minimize the depth of the wet wells and increase system efficiency. The sewer pump station would be sized to serye the undeveloped property south of the site in addition to the proposed project The Applicant anticipates latecomers' agreements from other properties in the general area, The pump station would be dedicated to the City and operated as a municipal utility. Exhibit 22, Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon, 35. Final design ofthe pump station must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to grading or construction permit issuance. Until the final pump station design is established, it is not known how large Tract K will need to be to contain the facility. Because the project proposes to place a sewer pump station adjacent to residential development, Tract K needs to be large enough to accommodate various screening and mitigation measures required by the MDNS. In the event that Tract K must be enlarged to accommodate the pump station, adjacent Tract EE may need to be reduced in area. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 19. 36. PUDs must provide efficient public facilities, consistent with City standards that do not result in higher public operational costs than would be incurred by traditional subdivision. ACC 18.69. 090(B). City Planning Staff testified that the proposed layout of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 13 of26 the sanitary sewer force main leading from the pump station contains too many bends that would contribute to increased friction in the pipe and result in head loss, forcing the pump motors to work harder. At the hearing, Staff requested at hearing that the location of sanitary sewer force main be revised within currently proposed rights-of-way to produce a more efficient system and requested that the force main revision be required as a condition of approval. Exhibit 23, Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 16; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. The Applicant representative testified that the requested revisions can be accomplished by redesigning the path of the force main within the plat's north-most internal road, Testimony of Mr. Mann. 37. A Homeowners' Association is proposed to maintain private open spaces and access tracts not dedicated to the City. The Applicant submitted a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) proposed to govern the required maintenance of private open spaces and tracts. Exhibit 3U, Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated; Exhibit 36, CC&Rs. The CC&Rs, a legal instrument for permanent maintenance of community facilities, would be subject to review and approval prior to final plat approval. Exhibit 31, REVISED Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines; Exhibit 56. Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner. 38. Proposed PUDs must be consistent with required design standards and demonstrate design continuity of structures in order to achieve the PUD's stated purpose of "enhanced design." ACC 18.69.080, To address this requirement, the Applicant submitted proposed Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines and CC&Rs for the development. Exhibit 36; Exhibit 37; Exhibit 38; Exhibit 39. City Planning Staff stated that while these documents present a general intent to comply with the City's design requirements, the documents primarily address the design review process by the Homeowners' Association. Staff recommended revisions to the proposed CC&Rs prior to final plat approval to address required design specifications, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 39, The Applicant submitted an updated preliminary landscape plan, prepared by the Bradley Design Group, to address design features including street trees, landscaping, and signage. Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group, dated December 7, 2005. Photographic examples oflandscaping amenities similar to those proposed were submitted for illustrative purposes. Exhibit 47, Lakeland Hills PDD Landscape Amenities. The Applicant proposes a single standing monument sign to be placed at a landscaped plat entrance in Tract N. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit Forty, E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting dated December 17, 2004 transmitting sign detail. City Planning Staff noted that Tract Y is depicted on the revised plan as containing areas oflawn, which would not be consistent with the tract's intended purpose as a wetland buffer. To ensure protection ofthe wetland buffer, Staff requested that Tracts X and Y be protected by a native growth protection easement. Staff also noted that the revised plan does not address site furniture such as is depicted in the photographic examples from other PUDs that were submitted. Review and approval of a Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 14 of26 final landscape plan would be required prior to final plat approval to ensure consistency with PUD design guidelines. Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD; Exhibit 56, Memorandumfrom Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10. 40. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.2IC, the City of Auburn acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts caused by the proposed preliminary plat. The City issued a final Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) on October 13, 2005 containing 13 mitigation measures that would reduce environmental impacts of the rezone to PUD and plat development to a point of non-significance. The required mitigation measures include additional geotechnical study, wetland mitigation for the off-site wetlands, floodplain compensation (in the event that the project impacts floodplain storage capacity), water line extension requirements, traffic circulation measures, and archeological resources measures. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 13; Exhibit 7, MDNS. No appeal was filed and the MDNS became final on November 3, 2005. Testimony of Mr. Dixon. 41. Notice of application and notice of public hearing were mailed to surrounding property owners, posted on-site, and published in accordance with the City's code requirements. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 6. 42. At the public hearing, a representative from the undeveloped property to the south presented questions and concerns regarding the project. His questions pertained to the following: whether the proposed sewer pump station would be sized to serye off-site properties and whether latecomers' agreements would be accepted; financing for the completion ofI Street NE between 45th and 49th Streets NE; whether site grading would cause alterations in existing stormwater runoff flow, resulting in created wetlands; and whether the Applicant was required to develop full or half-street frontage improvements along the project's I Street NE frontage. Testimony of Mr. Hathaway. Both City Planning Staff and the Applicant responded to these concerns. Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Mann. 43. In the present case, the use of the flexible PUD design standards would result in the following public benefits that would not be provided under traditional subdivision of the same property: parkland dedication above that required of a subdivision; greater diversity in lot types and a more varied streetscape; relatively more affordable housing; and open space equal to or greater than 20% oftotal site area, allowing for shoreline access and a public east-west trail that would most likely not be provided by a traditional plat. Exhibit 45; Exhibit 46, Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parcel 000400- 0005; Testimony of Mr. Mann. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on applications for preliminary plat and rezones to PUD. ACC 18.69.140; ACC 14.03.040(A); ACC 17.06.050. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 15 of26 Criteria for Review: Rezone to PUD: The Hearing Examiner shall only recommend approval of a rezone to PUD designation if the record contains evidence to satisfY the following criteria established in ACC 18.69.150: I. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The rezone was initiated by a party other than the City; and 3. Modifications made to the proposal by the Hearing Examiner will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has established general rules for rezones (Parkridge v, Seattle, 89 Wash.2d 454 (1978), including the requirement that "the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." II Planned Unit Development: In order to recommend approval of a PUD, the Hearing Examiner must find that the record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the following criteria pursuant to ACC 18.69.150: I. The proposal makes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools. 2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public benefits required of the development ofPUDs by providing an improvement in the quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open space protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development using the existing zoning and subdivision standards. 4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council. 5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards of the zoning district the PUD is located in. 11 Parkridge v. Seattle (1978) also established a general rule that rezones could only be approved if a substantial "change in circumstances" had occurred in the vicinity ofthe proposal. However, Washington Courts have subsequently held that where a proposed rezone to PUD implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan, no showing of changed circumstances is required. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn, App. 840, 846 (1995). Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of A uburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPreliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 16 of26 6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood, including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the design guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D). Preliminary Plat: In order to recommend approval of a preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner must find that the record contains evidence to satisfY the following criteria pursuant to ACC 17.06.070: 1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, I, and sites for schools and school grounds. 2. Conformance to the general purposes ofthe City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council. 3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standard and specifications. 4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment. 5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. The Applicant initiated the rezone. Finding No.8. 2. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by the Applicant. 3. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The requested rezone would result in housing densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the site, increasing the supply and diversity of housing stock available in the vicinity. The PUD, as conditioned, would extend roads and utilities to an undeveloped area at the periphery of the City. The PUD would create 7.79 acres of open space within the development including a public park adjacent to the Green River parkway and a public trail connecting I Street NE with the Green River shoreline. Findings Nos. 4, 6, 10, lJ, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,20,21,22,34, 35, 36, and 43. 4. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the City of Aubnrn Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies. The proposed rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 17 of26 Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed densities of single-family residential development are consistent with the site's current Comprehensive Plan land use designations of "High Density Residential" and "Single Family Residential." The project would be consistent with Comprehensive Transportation Plan policies, particularly TR-13 regarding the provision of two points of access for developments with more than 75 dwelling units, both through off-site construction of I Street NE road and through the provision of the boulevard with two 20-foot lanes divided by a landscaped median at the plat entrance. Proposed stormpond facilities would provide aesthetic amenities consistent with Policy UD-6, Findings Nos. 9, 10, 12,21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, and 39. 5. With conditions, the proposal makes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools. The Applicant would extend public water and sewer to the project consistent with City design standards. Conditions of approval would ensure that the sewer pump station is sized to provide seryice to the undeveloped property adjacent to the south if and when it is developed in the future and that Tract K is adequately sized to protect adjacent residential lots. On-site portions of the buffers of off-site wetlands would be protected through compliance with MDNS conditions of approval. Stormwater would be collected, treated, and detained on- site prior to release in its natural drainage paths, Some of the treated stormwater runoff would be discharged to the off-site wetlands to the north in a manner designed to mimic pre-development flows and the remainder would be released into the existing open channel and eventually the Green River. A condition of approval would ensure that the stormpond designs satisfY City standards. The project would provide 7.79 acres of open space, including 3.9 acres of public parklands providing active recreation opportunities for the general public in addition to plat residents. The project would provide significant off-site infrastructure improvements in the completion of I Street NE between 40th and 45th Streets NE. These improvements would provide two access routes to the project from off-site areas for emergency and general traffic. The Applicant would dedicate significant right-of-way along the property frontage for I Street NE improvements. The internal plat road system would be designed and constructed consistent with City road standards, Sidewalks on both sides of all internal roads and the public trail provided in Tract B would provide for safe pedestrian circulation, as well as a connection to the Green River shoreline. School children would be bussed to area schools from a bus stop located on I Street NE near the plat entrance. Impacts to City of Kent Schools would be mitigated by the payment of fees. Findings Nos. 6, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29. 31, 32, 34, 34, 36, and 40. 6. With conditions, the proposal provides the public benefits required of PUD developments and is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69. In addition to the provisions named in Conclusion 5, the PUD would provide public benefits that would not be provided by a traditional plat including greater parkland dedication, more affordable housing, and open space equal to at least 20% of total site area. In light of a possible reduction in Tract EE to accommodate the pump station in Track K, a condition of approval is necessary to ensure that at least 20% ofthe total site area is set aside as open space. While Tract DD as a stand-alone tract might not represent desirable open space Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of A uburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPre1lminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 18 of26 due to its size and location, nothing in the record supports a conclusion that Tract DD should not be included as contiguous open space to the public trail in Tract B. A condition of approval would ensure that PUD design guidelines are satisfied. Findings Nos. 9, 13, 15, 35, 37, 38, and 43. 7. The approval of the PUD would have no more of an adverse impact on the surrounding area than any project developed using the existing zoning standards would have. The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood. While the PUD would allow for a slightly higher number of dwelling units than would be possible on the 6,000 square foot minimum lots required in the R-2 district with traditional subdivision of the site, the increase in impacts would be imperceptible. Surrounding properties are undeveloped and have primarily residential zoning designations. Development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code would not negatively impact the planned character of the immediate vicinity. Findings Nos. 3, 7, and 11. 9. As conditioned, the preliminary plat conforms to the City of Auburn's land division and zoning ordinances and other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications. As proposed, the project is consistent with the development standards of the PUD zoning district within the underlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. Conditions of approval would ensure that roads, utilities, open space, and stormdrainage improvements conform to applicable standards. Findings Nos. 10, 12, 20, 21,22, 31, and 32. 10. The project was reviewed for compliance with SEP A and an MDNS was issued. No appeals were filed and the MDNS became final. A condition of approval would ensure compliance with all mitigating measures required in the October 13,2005 MDNS. Additional conditions of approval would ensure that the off-site improvements of I Street NE north to 45th Street have no adverse impacts on off-site wetlands and that sufficient noise attenuation from the sewer pump station would be provided. Finding No. 40. 11. Compliance with ACC 8.12 would ensure that pnblic nuisances are prevented or abated. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the requests for rezone of approximately 38.48 acres from R2 Residential to Planned Unit Development, for approval of a Planned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for the Auburn Forty subdivision, a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision, be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: PUD Conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of open space, recreational areas, private tracts, parkland, and other communally owned facilities. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to its legal form and effect. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of A uburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 19 of26 Areas proposed to meet the twenty percent (20%) open space shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant or other method, describing that the space, its maintenance, and improvement are appurtenant to the land for the benefit of the residents of the planned unit development and adjoining property owners. The final plat shall grant easements to the City of Auburn in all communally owned open space and park land tracts so that the City may perform maintenance in the event of improper maintenance by the homeowners' association. All maintenance shall adhere to City of Auburn standards. 2. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, a plan for the design and construction of traffic calming methods on the northern, east-west street must be approved by the City Engineer. The traffic calming devices shall be completed or financially guaranteed for installation prior to final plat approvaL 3. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Landscaping Plan that demonstrates that all landscaping in the public rights-of-way, storm drainage tracts, sight distance tracts, and open space tracts conform to City standards. The plan must demonstrate conformance with standards for acceptable tree types and root barriers, etc., and must also show coordination with utility and road improvements. The plan must also include maintenance and conform to the standards in ACC 18.50,070. The Applicant shall provide root deflection devices or similar mechanisms for all trees planted within five feet of curbs, sidewalks, or pavement to ensure mature trees does not contribute to pavement deterioration. Care should be taken by the Applicant to account for individual lots' ingress and egress when defining the location of proposed street trees. The landscaped median within the residential collector street shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association and be included in the landscaping maintenance plan and the legal instrument assuring maintenance. The plan must be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of grading, construction or facility extension approvals. 4. In order to meet subdivision requirements of ACe 17.12.260 and PUD requirements of ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) related to dedication of recreation land and based on the Applicant's submitted preliminary plat, the Applicant shall dedicate at least 4.18 acres of land generally in the location identified as Tracts "B" & "E" on the Preliminary Plat Auburn Forty PUD, Apex Engineering, 9-16-04, revised 10-18-05 and in a configuration acceptable to the City of Auburn Parks Director. 5. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are typically submitted for construction ofthe subdivision there shall also be submitted engineering/construction and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicly dedicated Tract "B", The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn Parks Director prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings for the plat. The materials supplied and installed must be shown and meet the current City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteed. The plans for Tract B shall be accompanied by plans for and coordinated with the construction of wetland buffer and stormwater facilities on the adjacent tracts, The trail surface will be maintained by the City and the landscaping will be maintained by the Developer and! or homeowner's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 20 of26 association. This condition shall be part of each property owner's legal description and title. The maintenance schedule and responsibilities shall be identified in the legal instrument whose language shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Director prior to final plat approval and recording. Also a maintenance easement shall be provided by the City to the homeowner's association at the time of the final plat. 6. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are typically submitted for construction of the subdivision there shall also be submitted engineering/construction and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicly dedicated Tract "E". The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn Parks Director prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings for the plat. The materials supplied and instalh:d must be shown and meet the current City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteed. Also the plan shall include an interior pathway connecting to the public sidewalk. The plan shall at a minimum include play equipment of not less than 9,600 sq ft including fall zone. The play structure shall be large enough to seryice at least 90 children, featuring 18 to 20 play events designed for children from the ages of 2 to 12 years old. The park area should include but not limited to four (4) park benches, four (4) picnic tables and one (1) garbage receptacle, The materials will be purchased and installed by the developer. The area that will be developed and constructed will be located west (outside) of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. Curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided along the street of Tract E prior to final plat approval. 7. The developed park area within Tract Band E shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system that meets the City/Park department standards. The irrigation information shall be identified in a plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval. 8. The Applicant shall work with the City of Auburn Parks Department and with King County Parks and Open Space Department on locating the Green River Trail alignment on the developer's construction drawings so as not to place play equipment or park furnishings in the path of the potential trail (Green River Trail) that will be constructed in the future by the county or successor agency. 9. Pedestrian/ornamental street lights shall be provided along the interior streets of the plat. The style of the lights shall be consistent with city standards or an ornamental style approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the spacing and location of the lights to ensure that adequate lighting is provided along the surface of all streets and any adjacent sidewalks. The lighting standards shall be coordinated with lighting standards provided in open spaces. 10. The designs of the homes shall be at least equivalent to the illustrations in The Auburn North Forty Homeowner's Association Architectural Guidelines for the Construction of New Homes (Exhibit 53) and Polygon and OakRidge Homes Elevations and Floor Plans. Revisions to the CC&Rs and an architectural design plan shall be reviewed and approved Findings. Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 21 of26 by the Planning Director prior to submittal of building permits (for model homes) or final plat, providing additional specifications for the following items: . Overall coordination of building design in light of the fact that the homes could be developed by multiple homebuilders . Modulation of roof and wall fayade . Opportunity to stagger the placement of homes on the lots to avoid continuous rows . The use of different materials on each house & consistency of siding materials on sides ofthe residence . Variation in facades and rooflines . Number of different building designs and dispersion of building designs . Number of parking spaces provided on each lot . Colors Idesigns for the buildings II. Prior to approval grading, construction, or facility extension permits, the type and placement of landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director. The Final landscape design shall be generally consistent with the: Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Fortv PUD, Bradley Design Group, dated October 31, 2005 with the following revisions: . A void landscape trees in front of storm pond maintenance accesses . Avoid removal or disturbance within the 200-foot shoreline area . Ensure that landscaping is coordinated with and identifies sight distance requirements . Ensure that Tract boundaries, i.e. Tract N, agree with the plat 12. The PUD requires that open spaces be enhanced as an amenity. The PUD will also require ornamental/pedestrian type lighting, furniture in the open space areas, and that entrance signs and fencing will be coordinated, Lighting, furniture and signs shall be of consistent design and material throughout the project. Any signs shall be a low monument style with lighting and accenting landscaping. The signs shall generally be consistent with the plan accompanying the E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting a sign detail, December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 40). The number, style, placement and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director as part of the final landscaping plan, The permanent maintenance of the lighting furniture and signs within any public tracts or open spaces shall be addressed as part of the instrument setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care. 13. Fencing shall be of a compatible material, style and color throughout the PUD. The Planning Director shall approve of a fencing plan or fencing shall be addressed as part of the required landscaping plan. The fence designs shall be at least equivalent to the photos of open rail fences accompanying the Letter from Apex Engineering response to Completeness Letter (environmental checklist application supplement) dated 3-25-05. Specifically, consistent fence treatments shall be provided in the following locations: . Fencing between lots and Tract B & E (park land tracts) Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of A uburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone!PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 22 of26 . Fencing between individual lots and Tract A and Tract F (stormwater facility tracts) . Fencing or other separation between lots and the open space tracts including Tract N . Fencing along southern boundary of project site The permanent maintenance ofthe fencing adjacent to any public tracts or open spaces shall be addressed as part of the legal instrument setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care. 14. The Applicant has proposed that certain Lots shall be limited to alley access, i.e. no vehicle access except by the alley. The final plat shall include a requirement that Lots 65 through 108 and Lots 144 through 157 (or equivalent number oflots should the plat be modified and lots renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building entrance oriented to the street and vehicle entrance from the public alley. Additionally, Lots I through 5, and Lots 30 through 36 and Lots 211 through 223 (of their equivalents should the plat be modified and lots renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building entrance oriented to the residential collector street and the vehicle entrance from the local residential street. 15. The approval of the PUD is only valid upon the approval and execution by the Auburn City Council of the associated preliminary plat, File No. PLT04-0009. 16. While Tracts A and F will be publicly dedicated for stormwater management, in order to meet open space objectives of the PUD the tracts will require more extensive landscaping treatment and more intensive maintenance. As a result, the HOA must maintain the portions of the tracts outside the fenced pond boundary, or ifno fence if provided, outside the 10-year storm water surface elevation and the public right-of-way. The maintenance shall be prescribed in the legal instrument that addresses maintenance of open space tracts. 17. Prior to issuance of grading, construction, or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide construction plans and cross sections for review meeting city standards for the proposed storm water facilities located within Tracts A and F that and demonstrate coordination with landscaping plans. Tracts A and F may need to be modified and or enlarged to meet the design and construction standards to accommodate the calculated storage volumes and required aesthetics for storm ponds constructed in residential areas. 18. The Applicant has submitted an Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering, 10-27-05, that demonstrates the Proposed Tract K is not sufficient to accommodate needed pump station facilities. As a result, the adjacent Tract EE will require reduction in area. The developer should be aware of the City may require the pump station to incorporate variable speed drive (VFD) motors in the sewer pump station since the initial flows to the pump station will be minimal. This consideration is important because the station will serye a larger area in the future and VFD motors will handle the initial lower flows better. The use of this pump type would limit the needed expansion of the tract. Findings. Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1at- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 23 of26 19, Prior to issuance of grading permits or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide a written comparison between the placement of the sewer force main as identified in the Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat. Conceotual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering, 10-20-05 and the placement of the force main along public right of way and then between Lots 41 and 42, Lot 29 and finally between Lots 9 and 10. The discussion must compare the possible loss of two lots with the layout of a direct force main and increased open space. The goal of the discussion is to reduce the number and severity of the force main bends as shown in the conceptual plan to reduce maintenance, realize public utility efficiencies and reduce net public operational costs consistent with PUD requirements at ACC l8.69.090(B). 20. Tracts X and Y shall be owned by the HOA and encumbered by a native growth protection easement conveyed to the City of Auburn to meet minimum buffer requirements of the CAO, ACC 16.10 and PUD open space requirements. 21. Given the relatively narrow frontages of the proposed single-family residential lots and the impact on pedestrians (and wheelchairs and strollers) from elevation changes due to a series of closely spaced driveways, the local residential road cross section shown on the preliminary plat shall be revised to show the landscape planting strip abutting the curb on both sides of the street, 22. Prior to approval of construction drawings or facility extensions, the Applicant shall demonstrate that twenty percent (20%) of the site's buildable area is set aside as open space meeting the definition of open space per ACC l8.69.080(A)(l) as determined by the Planning Director. 23. The maintenance responsibility for the landscaping within the medians would be by the HOA by licensed and bonded professional maintenance firm under a right-of-way use permit. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 1. Per section 10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, sight distance is required to be measured at a point 14.5 feet from the travel way. The Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets I and 2 of2, Apex Engineering, 10-27-05 shows sight distance at intersections as being measured at 10 feet from the travel way, This is an acceptable departure from standards for a local residential road intersection. However, intersections 1,6 and 7 as indicated in the sight plan drawings submitted are collector or arterial road intersections and shall evaluate sight distance at 14.5 feet per the city standards. The Applicant shall resubmit a corrected sight distance analyses for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading, construction or facility extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis, the plat shall be modified to ensure that City sight distance standards are met and that all land within the property boundaries that occurs within the sight distance triangles is dedicated as right-of-way. The dedication is shall be accomplished on the Final Plat, if not conveyed in advance. This may result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 24 of26 requirements are satisfied. Also, per section 10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, the speed assumed for the sight distance analysis at intersection 1, the main plat entrance to I Street NE, as shown on the exhibit submitted, shall use 35 mph for the design speed, The Applicant shall resubmit a corrected sight distance analyses for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or facility extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis, the plat shall be modified to ensure that city sight distance standards are met and that all land within the property boundaries that is located within sight distance triangles is dedicated as right of way on the Final Plat, if not already conveyed in advance. This may result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable requirements are satisfied. 2. The Applicant has proposed that the off-site extension of I Street NE will not result in wetland filling or impacts beyond those identified on the Port's property and addressed in the Final MDNS. Prior to approval of the grading permit or facility extensions for half street improvements or off -site extension of I Street NE, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the I Street NE half-street improvements will not result in wetland filling or impacts, a final wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and Public Works Directors. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the subsequent grading permits or other construction permits. If applicable, the plan shall identify the amount of wetland impacts associated with extension of I Street NE and any associated wetland mitigation in accordance with the AC 16.10. 3. Notice of the future extension of the project's dead end streets shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future traffic improvements shall be provided as directed by the City Engineer. 4. Prior to Final Plat approval the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the site's existing water well and site septic system have been abandoned in accordance with state and local regulations and a water right transfer to the City's well field will need to be completed and filed with the Department of Ecology. 5. The project shall not at any time disturb or encroach upon the 200-foot shoreline buffer of the Green River. 6. The plat shall implement the thirteen (13) Conditions ofthe Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (FMDNS) (File Number SEP04-0037) issued October 13,2005. The conditions prescribe geotechnical procedures, wetland mitigation, floodplain compensation, archeological and cultural resources, road improvements, traffic circulation and water line extension requirements. 7. Because the proposed off-site extension of I Street NE that is needed to provide access to the plat will result in additional imperyious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the issuance of any grading or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide plans Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 25 of26 detailing off-site storm drainage improvements including water quality treatment for the required I St. NE extension. 8. Because the proposed frontage improvements ofI Street NE will result in additional imperyious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the issuance of any grading or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide plans for review detailing drainage improvements for the half-street improvement; along the plat frontage. Water quantity control and water quality treatment for the imperyious surfaces or an equivalent area or discharge shall be managed within the proposed on-site storm drainage pond facility. 9. The median at far southern end of the Plat on the collector road shall be foreshortened and designed to permit vehicle turnaround. This shall be accomplished prior to approval of any construction drawings. 10. All alleys are public and shall be identified as public on the plat. This shall be accomplished prior to approval of any construction drawings. 11. No direct residential Lot access shall be allowed from the proposed lots to the collector street within the plat. 12. No direct residential Lot access shall be allowed from the proposed lots to the arterial street (I Street NE). 13, Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, in order to avoid a sight distance/safety concern the Applicant shall restrict direct access to the street from the alley between Lots 83 and 84 by a means of traffic control acceptable to the City Engineer. 14. In order to ensure the accurate placement of homes/structures in relationship to the setbacks required from property lines, easements, or other similar features associated with a lot, the City's Building Official may require that all applicable corners of the structure be surveyed and staked prior to the pouring of footings or foundations, 15. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, the Applicant shall submit manufacturer specifications or a noise study for review and approval by the City Engineer that demonstrates that noise associated with the sanitary sewer pump station will meet state noise standards. Noise attenuation measures may be required to achieve consistency. Decided this day of January 2006. Driscoll & Hunter City of Auburn Hearing Examiners By: Theodore Paul Hunter Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002 page 26 of26 Exhibit "B" Resolution No. 3989 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE GEORGE E. KING DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 40, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FENCE LINE AS IT EXISTED ON DECEMBER 17, 1979, AS DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912170640; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7409060426; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING NORTHERLY OF THE BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118.